Why do most ancient civilizations develop into patriarchy society?
Until modern technology freed us (in part. at least) from biology, a sexual division of labour made sense, and was indeed inevitable. Other social animals, from insects up to mammals, also share tasks on the basis of sex. The division is not always, especially in more complex and intelligent species where culture has influence as well as biology, exactly the same, but in similar species there are often parallel developments. Gorillas, for example, work remarkably like humans: the male sleeps at the foot of the tree, where his wives and children are tucked up in a cosy nest, to guard his family from the leopards; and in the process (like Hector in the Iliad) often finds a hero's death. The social result is the same as in human society. The female gorillas provide cultural and social continuity, raise and teach the children and effectively keep the tribe together. A 'patriarchal' or 'macho' society is, in the same way and despite its labelling, almost always dominated by the women for the simple reason that when the men are away hunting, making war or cattle raiding, effective rule is exercised by the adults left behind - the females. They will live longer, gather wisdom and experience, and have a decisive influence on the young of both sexes. The men of course gather glory and can indulge their appetites if they win - but do not confuse glory or indulgence with power. Examples are ancient Sparta, almost any Renaissance city-state in Italy and so on. Societies in which men can win a share of effective power or influence tend to be those like Victorian Britain, where a good proportion of the alpha males stayed at home, earned their living by peaceful means and were actively concerned with the upbringing of their own children. The same tendency continues to develop in our own day. Women are moving into public life, freeing up a larger percentage of men to exercise real influence, in the easier and more congenial task of managing the family.
Greatest impact on development of human civilization: fire or agriculture?
This is a bit like asking: what is more important for human life, air or water? There is no doubt that without fire the human race would be totally different, as it would if not for agriculture. Fire is probably the most important to life as we know it, however, because it allows humans to safely eat foods that would otherwise be harmful or impossible to eat otherwise, and continue to thrive in climates that it could not otherwise survive. This greatly expanded humankind's options for surviving and thriving, and civilization would have remained primitive without it. Agriculture extended this effect by conferring even more options for suvival and allowed humankind to settle and create permanent communities. Without agriculture, humankind would have remained a hunter-gatherer society, and probably would have been permanently nomadic or migratory. Without agriculture, it would be interesting to know how the necessity to move about might have affected various advances in civilization, perhaps stunting the growth of architecture and causing quicker progress in the development of transportation and, say, hunting weaponry.
How does the study of ancient civilizations benefit modern societies?
The study of ancient civilizations does have great benefits to our modern societies by providing us with knowledge of experiments (political, for exemple), strategies, ethics, morals that could be of a great relevance to us now and in the future. It is also a wise and educated idea to know how everything came to be. Everything that we have today had a beginning, be it in antiquity or more recently in time. It is also vital that we do learn and keep track of History, since there are so many lessons to learn from, and that if forgotten, could have a negative effect on Mankind.
How does the movement of the mantle affect human societies?
The movement of the mantle is far too slow to have a significant effect on human societies. The pushing up of mountains by tectonic plates is far too slow to affect human societies. , Volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis caused by the movement of tectonic plates have wiped out or nearly wiped out a number of ancient civilizations. While movement of plates can significantly alter climate over millions of years, humans have not been around long enough to be impacted by this.
What lessons learned from Ancient Greece apply to modern society and civilizations?
There are a couple different key lessons that can be taken from the Greeks. One is the bravery showed by Spartans in battle. They are fearless and determined to fight and win every battle. While we the United States don't necessarily need to get involved in every war or battle fought, when we do enter one we should go at it 120% and see it all the way through with wisdom, deteremination, and bravery. Another lesson to be taken from the Greeks is the way that they would kill each other, backstab each other to get ahead. This unfortunately still exists in today's world and especially in the United States where everyone is out for themselves to get ahead and make the big bucks without caring about who they are hurting or the consequences of their actions. The United States as a whole should take a look at Ancient Greece and see how the destruction from within was the cause of the end of the powerful Greek nations and that if we aren't careful, we could head down that road of self-destruction.
Is it possible that human civilization could have existed before 10,000 BC but we'll never find a trace of them?
First of all, there seems to be a pretty large misconception about the Roman Republic. It had several nearby contemporaries (Etruscans, Greek colonies in Italy) and many, many precursors. Second, to answer the question directly, I suppose that depends on your definition of civilization. If you mean cities, there's strong evidence that those arose concurrently with agriculture. Some of the oldest sites in west Asia date to roughly 10,000 BCE. It's entirely plausible that there are older sites, buried by the vagaries of erosion and time and human activity, though the likelihood of significantly older sites is poor. You'd need a solid agricultural base to feed a city, after all, and there is both physical and genetic evidence of a gradual trend away from hunting and gathering toward pastoralism and agriculture around 10-15k years ago. Some people tend to equate "civilization" with an organized writing system. There's something to that- writing was the first reliable means of accumulating collective human knowledge after all. The earliest systems of writing we've found are much younger- no more than five or six thousand years before present. It's plausible to believe that other writing systems existed and were lost (early cities were even more ephemeral things than the fragile works of modern humans are in the face of nature, after all), sometime between the advent of agriculture and thus complex societies and the beginnings of recorded history. Anything older than that, and regrettably, you're talking pure fantasy along the lines of Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age, rather than history.
How long do civilizations usually last?
Empires tend to have limited lifespans. The more aggressively it pursues war, the faster it squanders its resources and the shorter the lifespan (remind you of any modern states?). The path of war can bring about tremendous wealth and power for awhile, but after a point comes in diminishing returns, and finally liability and debt. The Roman Empire ended this way. It didn't know when to quit while it was ahead. Wars are by no means the only factor. But if you want to relate to current Western civilization it is by far the most important. Early Egypt may seemed to have survived a long time. But its civilization collapsed and regrouped at least twice in its 3000 year history due to famine and invasion. It did have the advantage of natural geographical defenses (the desert). Other old world civilizations typically lasted 500-1000 years.